Hi Ria, Nicholas and all.
Phil and Rachael are certainly looking a lot better on these backgrounds than on my original 'fix' ... they are a long way from the cluttered room they originally inhabited and Nicholas, that ocean-going theme .... yes that fits the feeling very well indeed. I must say I do think dancers generally look better in ballroom gear [admittedly I am biassed] ... and generally better out of modern ballrooms where the atmosphere has moe to do with competition than fun. .... A question ... is there any easy way to change the size of subjects relative to the background when overlaying them becuase so far I have been using change image size then then reding if I have not got it right but would prefer something like draggable handles to simply resize whilst positioning on the background - I feel I hae bene missing out on something obvious. Also I wonder, would it be OK with the two of youif I send them these pics?
Ria, thanks for the explanation of the workflow with Ian and Victoria. It is making sense yet I would still appreciate the unflattened PSD so I will send PM. Thanks for the offer. It will teach me more about layers. After a long time working mainly with the basic adjustments and the burning/dodging and clone, I 'discovered' quickmask and the last few weeks have been getting used to that. Took me a while to get to grips. The 'Standard' masks I have been finding confusing ... I suddenly find I have lost access to it or it is affecting bits that I had not intended ... and in ways I had not expected. So seeing your psd with a set of masks which are suceeding in doing what they are intended to will be very helpful. Thankyou.
I followed your link to DRL's post ... that many layers would confuse me totally .... his work impressed me greatly with that circuit-board ... almost 21st Century Da-vinci 'human/geometry' feel. I have accidentally come accross blending modes and have one or two favourites .... hard light I find useful when going for extreme contrast. I seem to remember a street shot from some time ago where the daylight shadows were not particularly soft so I was outside of the comfortable dynamic range limits, but I was nto getting the purity of a silhourette and indeed I did not want that. I discovered hard light blending mode from somewhere and that seemed to crisp up the image. Form was gained at the expense of content but otherwize the shadows would have been so muddy that it would not have been a useful pic anyway. Hard light is the only one I have used but I must get to now them better because it seems that those options ARE the glue which sticks the layers together creatively.
You mentioned your willingess to 'allow' a mistake for creative effect. As much as I am wanting to become technically precise with noise reduction[partly to get the very best out of the R1 and partly because I want my results to be increasingly a result of my choice rather than lack .... I do love some of the watercolouring effects that can be got.
I attach a Ricoh picture of Kim and his partner .... this is one of those moments in the dance where the couple is on one spot and are in transition from spinning in one direction to reversing. So the people are in focus yet there is swirl of dress and slight dynamics of leg movement. This is also an example of 'last year's accident' being notices and subsequently looked out for in order to capture deliberately. This was taken three months ago.
Off on a tangent ... I have always loved photography, and what I love about digital photography is that the distance between snapping, PP, feedback, then trying again is so close that learning accellerates terrifically ...
Anyway, all the best